Talk:INTERSLAVIC
Interslavic Name Transition The Article Page is subject to revision (1) the name change to''' "Interslavic"' (2) division of Grammar into Full Interslavic in this Article - with the '''Mid' and Simple Interslavic relocated to separate Article pages. Thank you for your patience! Steevenusx 05:47, February 3, 2010 (UTC) Slovianski If I'm allowed to make a small comment, I'm not entirely happy with the following phrase: Slovioski also utilizes an expanded vocabulary from another "auxiliary language" off-shoot of Slovio - called Slovianski. Obviously, it is the word offshoot I disagree with. I know among adherents of Slovio there are people who believe this (or at least want you to believe it), but let me assure you it is not true. For a language to be an offshoot of another language, I'd say at least one of the following conditions must be fulfilled: *it is based on the other language by adding to it or modifying it or whatever, or *it is proposed by former activists of the other language, or at least *it copies material from the other language. None of these are the case. All Slovio and Slovianski have in common is the same basic idea, and even that one is a tad different. All materials are the result of our own research; Slovianski doesn't contain any Slovio material and it is by no means based on or even inspired by Slovio. As far as I know, none of the creators of Slovianski have ever been involved with Slovio either. Would the same people who call Slovianski an offshoot of Slovio, also call Slovio and offshoot Ladislav Podmele's Medžuslavjanski? Cheers, IJzeren Jan 15:39, November 5, 2009 (UTC) ---- Jan, Thank you for your comments. I use the word "offshoot" based upon the plethora of comments regarding the start of Slovianski found in that notorious forum @ http://www.network54.com/Forum/183880/. What I understood from reading these various comments was that the genesis of Slovianski was in significant part as an exception or alternative to SLOVIO, but its concept clearly influenced by SLOVIO (although "in contrast"). To me it was as if I drove into a town or village and saw how it was set-up: with certain type of architecture, roadway systems, lighting, etc.; and that after looking at this village's "set-up," I decided that I would prefer to have a different type of "set-up". And so, with different concept in mind, but still motivated by the original village, I chose to establish a different type of village. To me, my "different" village is an "off-shoot" of that original one which gave genesis to my "different village." The foregoing notwithstanding, because you take exception to "the word," I will most respectfully change the text. Thank you, Jan! --Steevenusx 16:32, November 5, 2009 (UTC) ---- Thanks, Steeven, I appreciate that! Well, I'm surely not saying that the idea of a Slavic interlanguage is new - neither when Slovianski was created nor when Slovio was created. I am not sure myself in how far discontent about Slovio has ever played a role in the creation of Slovianski; in my own case it was zilch, but I can't speak for the others (although Ondrej repeatedly mentioned he was mainly inspired by a pidginesque language he'd heard in his youth). Slovianski might not have existed if Slovio had been very different, that's probably true. But even then, because in Poland Solidarność appeared in opposition to the PZPR, does that make Solidarność a PZPR-offshoot? ;) Actually, my own personal history with Slovianski is fairly coincidental, to tell you the truth. I'm not much of an auxlanger, I'm rather interested in constructed languages in general and artistic languages in particular. Years ago, Mark invited me to collaborate on Slovio (still very young at the time), a proposal I turned down for precisely that reason. A few years later, very shortly after Slovianski had been conceived, my first thought was: hell, why not? The basic premise of Slovianski was still very pidginesque at the time. Once I started giving it some more thought, I came to the conclusion that a more naturalistic language, fully focused on instant understandability, would be a better way to go. And that's how Slovianski-N came into being. I was opposed to a schematic language, because there was already one (why reinvent Slovio?), while - except for some sketches and old projects - there was no such thing as a naturalistic Slavic interlanguage yet. In other words, my Slovianski-N was motivated not by the existence of Slovio, but by the non-existence of a naturalistic language. And how can you call a thing based on something non-existent an offshoot? :D BTW, I have nothing against Slovio, and I have repeated that quite often, also on the afore-mentioned notorious forum. Frankly, I find it saddening that some people treat Slovianski as if it were a rival, or even an enemy. Sure, I won't deny that I have certain issues with Slovio, not only of an esthetical nature, but mostly because of all the politics that surround it and the way it tries to sell itself. But all in all, that's a minor thing, and most of all, I consider Mark Hucko a fellow conlanger and I respect him a such. As far as I'm concerned, we can do without all the rivalry. Cheers, IJzeren Jan 17:55, November 5, 2009 (UTC)